ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
25 June 2015 (*)
(Stay of proceedings – Article 42(1)(a) of the Rules of Procedure – Pending cases brought simultaneously before the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal calling into question the validity of the same act)
In Case F‑86/14,
ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof,
Andrea Janoha, member of the contract staff of the European Commission, residing in Christ Church (Barbados), and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex, represented by O. Mader, lawyer,
applicants,
v
European Commission, represented by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents,
defendant,
supported by
Council of the European Union, represented by M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents,
intervener,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
makes the following
Order
1 By application received at the Registry of the Tribunal on 1 September 2014, Mr Janoha and five other applicants whose names appear in the annex seek, in essence, annulment of the decisions by which the European Commission reduced their annual leave entitlement under the second paragraph of Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in the version thereof resulting from Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union.
2 By letter from the Registry of 24 October 2014, the parties were informed that the Tribunal proposed to stay the proceedings until the decisions bringing the proceedings to an end in Cases T‑17/14, U4U and Others v Parliament and Council, and T‑23/14, Bos and Others v Parliament and Council, have become res judicata.
3 By letter received at the Registry of the Tribunal on 29 October 2014, the Commission raised no objection to the proposed stay of proceedings.
4 By letter received at the Registry of the Tribunal on 5 November 2014, the applicants asked the Tribunal not to impose the proposed stay of proceedings, explaining, first, that the present case was clearly different from Case T‑17/14, U4U and Others v Parliament and Council, and Case T‑23/14, Bos and Others v Parliament and Council and, secondly, that a stay of proceedings would have the effect of delaying unnecessarily the management of the present case, given the inadmissibility of the actions brought in Case T‑17/14, U4U and Others v Parliament and Council, and Case T‑23/14, Bos and Others v Parliament and Council.
5 On 11 November 2014, the General Court issued an order declaring the action in Case T‑23/14 (order in Bos and Others v Parliament and Council, T‑23/14, EU:T:2014:956) manifestly inadmissible.
6 By letter received at the Registry of the Tribunal on 11 May 2015, the Council indicated that it was in favour of the proposed stay of proceedings.
7 Under Article 42(1)(a) of the Rules of Procedure, the proceedings may be stayed ‘where the Tribunal and either the General Court or the Court of Justice are seised of cases in which the same issue of interpretation is raised or the validity of the same act is called in question’.
8 In accordance with Article 42(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the decision to stay the proceedings is made by the President after hearing the parties. In the event of an objection, a decision on the staying of proceedings is to be made by reasoned order.
9 In the present case, it must be noted that the Tribunal and the General Court are seised of cases in which the validity of the same provision of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union is called in question.
10 It is apparent from the documents on the Court’s file that the legality of the second paragraph of Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in the version thereof resulting from Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013, called into question by a plea in the present case, is also challenged in Case T‑17/14, U4U and Others v Parliament and Council, still pending before the General Court.
11 Although the applicants claim that the action brought in Case T‑17/14, U4U and Others v Parliament and Council is inadmissible because it is brought by persons who are not directly concerned by the contested statutory provision, such an argument cannot preclude the proposed stay of proceedings since, in any event, it is not for the Tribunal to prejudge the decision of the General Court in that case.
12 Therefore, according to Article 42(1)(a) of the Rules of Procedure, it is appropriate to stay the proceedings in the present case until the decision closing the proceedings in Case T‑17/14, U4U and Others v Parliament and Council, has become res judicata.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
hereby orders:
1. The proceedings in Case F-86/14, Janoha and Others v Commission, are stayed until the decision closing the proceedings in Case T‑17/14, U4U and Others v Parliament and Council, has become res judicata.
2. Costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 25 June 2015.
ANNEX
Pablo Isla Villar, residing in Ivandry (Madagascar),
Nicole Malpas, residing in Dhaka (Bangladesh),
Francesco Torcoli, residing in Accra (Ghana),
Piero Valabrega, residing in Bissau (Guinea-Bissau),
Stefano Varriale, residing in Pretoria (South Africa).